Right to use dagga back in court

07 November 2017 - 11:30 By Katharine Child
subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now
Dagga legalisation law marijuana gavel
Dagga legalisation law marijuana gavel
Image: Gallo Images/ IStock

Rastafarian lawyer Garreth Prince‚ who has been fighting for the right to smoke cannabis‚ aka dagga‚ in the privacy of his home‚ has his second appearance in the Constitutional Court today.

Along with dagga-legalisation pressure group Iqela Lentsango’s Jeremy Acton‚ Ras Menelek Barend Wentzel‚ Jonathan Rubin and Caro Hennegin‚ Prince is asking the highest court in the land to confirm the Western Cape High Court ruling that the law banning the private use of cannabis is unconstitutional.

Prince lost his battle to have the ban on Rastafarian religious use of dagga declared unconstitutional in 2002.

A colourfully dressed Prince said he was "elated" to be back at court‚ after years of fighting for the right to use dagga. He will be representing himself.

If the Constitutional Court upholds the Western Cape High Court judgment‚ the private use of dagga in one's home would no longer be illegal. Parliament would be instructed to make new laws within two years‚ to replace those that ban the personal use and private possession of dagga.

The state is appealing the high court order.

The Minister of Justice‚ the Minister of Social Development‚ the Minister of International Relations and Co-operation‚ the Minister of Trade and Industry‚ the Minister of Police and the Minister of Health all want the high court's decision overturned.

The case before the Constitutional Court has attracted widespread attention.

On Tuesday‚ the court will decide if King Adam Kok V of the Griqua nation‚ Chief Petrus Vaalboot‚ and the Auni San people can present evidence in the case. They argue that the ban on dagga threatens their heritage and culture‚ as it has been used for centuries in their cultural‚ spiritual and medicinal practices.

Doctors For Life‚ a Christian pressure group‚ has already been admitted as a friend of the court. They argue that the high court overstepped its powers when it overturned the law banning the private use of dagga‚ and did not appreciate the complexity involved in legalising dagga. Doctors For Life feel that the court had no right to strike down existing laws banning dagga use.

Jules Stobbs and Myrtle Clarke‚ nicknamed "the Dagga Couple"‚ have been given permission to appear as intervening parties as well. This means they can present new evidence in the case. They will contribute evidence from their on-going case at the Pretoria High Court‚ in which they have asked that all laws banning the medicinal‚ recreational and industrial use of cannabis be declared unconstitutional.

In the Constitutional Court‚ the two will argue that the harms of the criminal prohibition of dagga outweigh the harms of its use. They aren’t claiming that cannabis use presents no potential harm at all‚ but that the "mere existence of harm‚ in and of itself‚ does not justify criminal prohibition".

"If it did‚" their argument continues‚ "other vices such as cigarettes‚ alcohol‚ sugar‚ caffeine‚ pornography and skydiving would scream for similar blunt-force criminalisation."

In court papers‚ the Dagga Couple has argued that it is not legally rational to treat cannabis users differently to users of other substances‚ like alcohol‚ sugar and cigarettes‚ that can be equally‚ if not more harmful.

They further submitted that imprisoning a dagga smokers affects their future employment opportunities by giving them a criminal record; consequences that they believe are "disproportionate to the crime".

subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now